Article

2005-08-20 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by anonymous5089 2005-08-20 04:59|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 She makes a lot of important points, not all of which I agree with. I'll think about this and see what others have to say before commenting further.

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-20 08:43|| 2005-08-20 08:43|| Front Page Top

#2 Democracy is not so fragile as she supposes. In fact, it has an extraordinary combination of factors that may eventually prove it to be a slow, but irresistable force in the world.

First of all is its organization. Visible is the powerful balanced hierarchy of its leaders; what a traditional oriental thinker might call its "masculine" trait. Invisible is the "masses" from where that power derives; its feminine trait. The masses are amorphous, coalescing into ad hoc, volitile and unpredictable groups to flesh out this powerful masculine hierarchy by voting. Add the two traits together and you can order and change; whichever is the mood of the people.

There is an expression: "People eventually get the kind of government they want." By silently resisting and cooperating, they can train even an invader army to go along to get along.

Democracy truly is what people want--to choose their own leaders. An obvious choice, the safest one there is. People who choose otherwise would also elect to obey orders instead of choosing their own way. Such is the way of sheep heading to the slaughterhouse.

Any government stands or falls based upon a ratio of "government efficiency". It is simple, the ratio of what a government promises vs. what it actually delivers. Promise little and deliver it, and you will remain the government. Promise much and don't deliver, and you will be deposed. Ironically, it doesn't really matter *what* you promise, good or bad, as long as you deliver.

Democracy promises much; but it can do so because it has rapid feedback from the people. It knows what they want, and knows it had better deliver or it will be replaced with someone who either doesn't make promises he can't keep, or delivers on those he does.

So what opposes democracy? First of all, the "priests" and the "royals". "Priests", the shamen, ministers and imams say that all law and organization are dictated from heaven. And this law can only be dictated by them, as the voice of heaven. Theirs are the "moral" laws, and violations of those laws are "immoral". To challenge those laws is "blasphemous."

Democracy creates laws written "Of men, by men, and for men", no god or gods needed. And if men want to change the law, they do so. To follow the law in a democracy means that one is "ethical", not necessarily "moral". But though the dictionary equates the two, democrats inherently know the difference. And they distrust those politicians who claim to be "moral", as they would distrust that policitician's priest, and his particular interpretation of "morality", if he wants to inflict it on them.

"Royals" are much like "priests", in that they are elitists, thinking themselves so superior to everyone else that their dictates, based on their wisdom, should be the law. "Royals" still exist in those individuals who seek to undermine democracy from within, such as EU bureaucrats.

"-isms" also oppose democracy. Tribalism, racism, sexism, socialism, fascism, communism, etc.

And both groups, the "priests" and "royals", and the "-isms", always seem to take the upper hand, expecially in a new democracy. But this is deceptive. What would you expect when such entrenched and institutionalized forces meet that new upstart revolution?

But revolutionary it is. Perhaps North Korea is the only remaining country on Earth that does not have at least some hidden democrats among its people. Democrats look like anyone else, and generally behave themselves even in a bitter dictatorship, but they are always there, waiting for their chance.

The Saud family was recently shaken to its roots, not by the realization that there were Jihadis in its ranks, but democrats. And as surely as they knew they had them, they had no idea as to who, among their kin, they were. There can be no greater threat to their dictatorial rule than democrats--the democratic "disease" spreading unpredictably, but inexorably, throughout their kingdom.

Right now, the entire Middle East faces what Europe faced in 1847. Democrats are everywhere, spreading their revolution. People become democrats without even fully knowing it, like a contagious philosophy. And once they become a democrat, they can't go back.

In 1848, democratic revolutions spread to every country in Europe but two.

What could mere Jihad do in the face of such an overwhelming enemy?

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-08-20 12:43|| 2005-08-20 12:43|| Front Page Top

#3 While I agree with some of what the author said, this comment is primarily to say *bravo* to Moose and echo many of the same sentiments.

Regards the article, Bush has, indeed, slackened the pace - I hope to consolidate gains, realign and refresh resources, and prepare for Round Two. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt over the author, because he has a history of taking action to back up his words. I will be the most disappointed person on the planet if he fails to follow up. Obviously Iran, driven by time and events, is the next serious challenge. He must meet it with what he has on hand when the time comes - wishing, sniping, and bitching won't affect it. I believe he will.

As to Moose's comment, you rang many of the same bells I feel are important when I attempt to post on so complex a topic as true democratic ideals - and their end product, personal freedom. Agreed, once experienced and appreciated instead of feared, everything else is immediately and simply hateful, vile, intolerable. Nothing less will do, ever again. The desire for Freedom is an emotional addiction - and emotions drive people, not logic, and not even traditions and customs can withstand it forever.

It can be a bitch to seed in hostile environments - and Islam + Arab Tribal "society" + absolute Dictatorships / Monarchies / Mullahcracies make almost the harshest imaginable... I picture it as 90% automatons, 9% sycophants, and 1% unchallenged controllers who are fighting for their very existence against it, trampling out individualism at every turn and resorting to killing their own to maintain power. But it's an idea that won't die as long as one person "gets it". Heh, it's like kudzu or bamboo - once rooted, it's there to stay. That's not to suggest it won't take generations, however. I figure that will be the case in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They have a lot of catching up to do in an environment purpose-built to prevent it.

Again, your post really hit the spot, Moose.

*standing ovation*

Posted by .com 2005-08-20 16:33|| 2005-08-20 16:33|| Front Page Top

#4 The strength of liberty is quite robust, either you believe in it or you don't. Freedom works, trust in that.

Posted by Clavilet Angesh8422 2005-08-20 20:03|| 2005-08-20 20:03|| Front Page Top

00:10 trailing wife
00:05 trailing wife
23:59 Poison Reverse
23:59 MunkarKat
23:59 Desert Blondie
23:58 trailing wife
23:56 Desert Blondie
23:54 Rafael
23:53 muck4doo
23:53 Rafael
23:52 Mike Sylwester
23:52 Desert Blondie
23:51 Mike Sylwester
23:50 Poison Reverse
23:49 Desert Blondie
23:49 badanov
23:45 Mike Sylwester
23:45 Rafael
23:45 badanov
23:44 Matt K.
23:41 Poison Reverse
23:38 badanov
23:36 Matt K.
23:36 Frank G